objection was raised on the grounds already stated earlier in this ruling. The Supreme Court in a plethora of cases has held that where a defendant’s statement was recorded through an interpreter, that statement will only be admissible through such an interpreter. That the interpreter be called not just to testify that he had acted as an interpreter between the defendant and the police interviewer, but must also testify as to the question(s) he had put to the defendant on behalf of police interview and the answers given to him by the defendant in the defendant’s language which he had interpreted in English language. - Olalekan V. The State (2001) 12 SCNJ 94. My Lord Ogundare JSC who delivered the lead judgment summed up the position at page 109 in the following words:“Without this evidence, the prosecution would not have proved that the statement sought to be tendered by the interviewing police officer was more than just hearsay. It is not for the defence to establish what went on between the accused and the interpreter. The burden of proving that fact, is on the prosecution and not on the defence. It is for this reason that in my respectful view, the interpreter must be called to testify and to elicit from him in evidence what the accused told him that he interpreted...” In the case of FRN V. Usman (2012) All FWLR Pt 632 P 1639, the Supreme Court held that the interpreter of a statement made by the defendant in vernacular to the police must be called otherwise the statement will be hearsay and therefore inadmissible. Rhodes Vivour JSC who delivered the lead judgment held at page 1652 as follows:- Page 31 of 43